2001 03 27 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
March 27, 2001 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert
Tyler,, and Chairman Robbins.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planner
-- Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
March 13, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 2, Item //2 be
corrected to read "Second, how long will the temporary..."; Page 16,
Item //11 "...parking lot south of the Beerhunter." Chairman Robbins
asked that Page 9, Item//20 under Roll Call be amended to show that he
voted in favor of the Environmental Impact. There being no. further
corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to
approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
VI. -PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Village Use Permit 2001-008; a request of Joseph Rounaghi for review
of remodeling plans for an existing commercial building changing the use
from a restaurant to an art gallery/studio located at 51-230 Eisenhower
Drive.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department. Staff noted
Condition//1 needed to be deleted.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Joseph
Rounaghi, the applicant, stated he was pleased to be in La Quinta
and was available for any questions.
3. There being no questions of the applicant and no further public
comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was
closed and opened to Commission discussion.
4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-032 approving Village Use Permit 2001-008, as
amended.
a. Condition #1: deleted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. Environmental Assessment 2000-396. General Plan Amendment 2000-
067. Zone Change 2000-045. and Site Development Permit 2000-677;
a request of Evergreen, La Quinta Limited Partnership for certification of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change to change lands currently designated as
Commercial Office to Neighborhood Commercial; Specific Plan'
establishing development standards and design guidelines for the
construction of a 14,490 square foot Walgreens and 63,600 square feet
of offices in two buildings; and development plans for the Walgreens
building.
1. Commissioner Abels excused himself due to a possible conflict of
interest and withdrew from the dias.
2. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\P~3-27-01 .wDd.wod_ ..... 2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked why a specific plan was required.
Commissioner Kirk asked why a specific plan was prepared for this
project. Staff stated the City required specific plans for all phased
commercial and in particular mixed commercial uses to analyze
circulation. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to give a history of
what this site was originally zoned for, what its current zoning is,
and why the change. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated
the current designation is Office/Commercial. Commissioner Kirk
noted he was asking for the zoning designation at its origin.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in
1992 General Plan Update it was redesignated as
Office/Commercial. The 1985 General Plan designated it as
Residential and the current designation is Office/Commercial.
Commissioner Kirk asked why it was.changed. Staff stated they
did not remember. The reason for this applicant's requested
change in zoning is because the current zoning of
Office/Commercial permits up to a 10,000 square foot retail
buildings. In order to go beyond the 10,000 square foot limitation
they need a zone change. Commissioner Kirk stated the reason he
is questioning the use of the specific plan is because specific plans
change land use designations for properties and in this instance
the applicant is providing new land use designations. Staff noted
that this specific plan changed zoning development standards.
Commissioner Kirk stated that wherever the specific plan or
development project was different than our existing Zoning Code,
we have gone back and conditioned the project, therefore he is
questioning why even do a specific plan. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio stated the other issue with a specific plan is that
it allows staff to use the environmental review for the later site
development permits that are submitted to see that they are in
compliance with the specific plan. This allows a more expeditious
review process.
2. Commissioner Butler asked about the permitted uses under the
current zoning designations. Staff stated the office portion could
go on as proposed, but the 14,490 square foot Walgreens would
not be allowed.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change were not approved, could they still
build the office building and Walgreens. Staff stated they could
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd,wpd :~
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
build the office building, but unless they reduce the square footage
of the Walgreens building to less than 10,000 square feet, it
would not be allowed. Commissioner Tyler asked about the
information contained in the staff report regarding the traffic
analysis. In one area it states that Walgreens would have more
traffic than the office building, but elsewhere in the staff report
it states the office buildings would generate more. It appears to
contradict itself. Planning Consultant Ni¢ole Criste stated the
Walgreens is 14,000 square feet and the offices are 63,000
square feet and this is where the discrepancy appears.
Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a reason as to why the
Commission did not receive the traffic analysis as it would be
helpful in analyzing the projects. Is it sufficient to have the hours
of operation stated in the Specific Plan only, or should they be in
the conditions as well. Staff stated it could be added to the
conditions if the Commission wanted them added, but the Specific
Plan does govern the project. Commissioner Tyler questioned how
you could enforce a condition requiring a truck to turn off its
engine while unloading and he would recommend the hours of
operation be added to the conditions.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the 10,000 square foot
limit. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that in the Zoning
Code, under Table of Uses, it breaks down retail use sizes and as
an accessory use under Non-residential retail stores under 10,000
square feet of floor area per business are allowed. Under Office/
Commercial uses it is allowed as an accessory use and can be free
standing. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were two businesses
in the two office buildings, could they have two 20,000 square
feet of commercial retail. Staff stated the Code implies it would
be allowed. Commissioner Kirk stated that based on this, it is his
interpretation that the Government Code that provides for specific
plans does provide that the specific plan can be the zoning for the
site while the statement earlier suggested it was focused on the
development standards and infrastructure. Planning Consultant
Nicole Criste stated that by law you cannot modify a land use
designation with a specific plan. You have to do concurrent
general plan amendments and zone changes. Assistant City
Attorney John Ramirez stated that under State law the
Government Code section providing for specific plans allows the
specific plan to amend or serve as a zoning tool. To the extent
that the specific plan overrides zoning, yes. Commissioner Kirk
stated it sounds that as if there were changes perhaps in the uses
one could design a project and still have a retail use here without
changing the zoning designation.
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 w~d.w~d 4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
~ 5. Chairman Robbins stated the staff reports states this project is
over parked. The City has set minimum standards for parking and
now when they do more than what is required, we ask them to
justify this. Why would we make them justify what the. City has
set as a minimum standard and they go beyond that? Planning
Consultant Nicole Criste stated that if the requirements of the
parking standards in the Zoning Code provide for adequate parking
for the use as they have been developed and adopted by the City,
then it is staff's belief that additional open space is preferred to
additional asphalt. Chairman Robbins questioned Condition #10
where it' states that all structures within 1 50 feet of Washington
Street or Avenue 50 shall not exceed 22 feet in height and staff
has stated the tower is 35 feet in height. Is staff saying that the
tower would not be allowed? Staff stated that was correct but
staff was recommending that the entire building be reduced in
height. Chairman Robbins stated the condition should be rewritten
to be more clear if staff wants the building elevation to be
redrawn. He questioned Condition #42 as to why staff is
requesting a six foot sidewalk at this location and in a separate
project they are requesting an eight foot sidewalk; is there a
reason why staff is asking for different widths of the sidewalk.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that at the other location there
is an existing eight foot sidewalk that has to be tied into. This
project does not have an existing sidewalk therefore the six foot
is being required. Chairman Robbins stated it was confusing that
on the south side of Avenue 50 you have a bikepath and when
you get to the side you do not. Staff stated that all the
improvements north of Avenue 50 have not been completed, but
at the other site they are tying into an existing eight foot sidewalk.
They could do'a narrowing effect at this location if that is what
the Commission wanted, but it is a change in size between major
intersections. Chairman Robbins stated he thought there was a
master plan for Washington Street that called out a specific
sidewalk size. Staff stated it did not call out the size.
6. Commissioner Tyler questioned the grading height. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated they have defined their pad and
parking level elevations. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated
Washington Street is shown at 42.35 feet at current grade. The
pad elevation for Walgreens is 45 feet. The parking lot elevation
goes from 43 feet to 44 feet. Commissioner Tyler stated the
question he had was in the staff report where it states the
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd ~
Planning Commission'Minutes
March 27, 2001
proposal includes filling the site to raise it above the current grade
of Washington Street. Staff stated the elevations of Walgreens
will be at 45 feet so the building pad at Avenue 50 will be a 45
foot contour. The parking lot will be depressed and the building
will be at grade.
7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Greg
Albert, representing Evergreen, gave a presentation of the project.
He stated one of his concerns with the staff report was in land use
issues. The site does allow for office commercial uses. One of
the major issues is in regard to property rights. There are several
conditions that deal with extensive off-site improvements to
Avenue 50 as well as Washington Street. Generally, they do not
take exception to the off-site improvements. The problem is that
with Avenue 50 the City does not have enough right of way to
allow the off-site improvements being requested. Normally, the
developer would be required to dedicate land that the developer
owned to accommodate the requested off-site improvements.
Under normal circumstances that is what they would do. This is
not a normal circumstance. A large portion of the frontage on
Avenue 50 is property that currently owned by CVWD. They have
been actively engaged with CVWD to negotiate an appropriate
easement that would, allow the driveway access to Avenue 50 as
well as all the landscaping and off-site improvements being
required of them. Evergreen cannot dedicate the land because it
is owned by CVWD and CVWD is not willing to grant an easement
to improve the Avenue 50 frontage. He questioned how the City
can require them to acquire land they do not own, at their
expense, for improvements that are for the public's benefit and
does not have much to do with this project. If the City were able
to acquire the right of way from CVWD then they would be happy
to do the improvements at their expense. Second issue is the
building height. The project as designed is in full compliance with
the City's Zoning Code. The Code requires for a distance from 150
feet from both Avenue 50 and Washington Street, a cap on the
building height of 22 feet in height. The staff report states that a
significant portion of their building exceeds the 22 feet; that is not
true. They have done their calculations and 95% of their building
area is contained within the 22 feet and they are set back 150
feet from Washington Street. The only issue is on Avenue 50.
Per the City's Zoning Code it states architectural features not
containing usable floor space are permitted to extend 15 feet
above the maximum structure height. He pointed out the only
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
areas on the building that extend above the 22 feet height.
limitation was primarily on the four corners of the building where
the architectural elements extend to 24 feet eight inches and the
tower element at the corner which is 30 feet eight inches. It was
their understanding this was no longer an issue. It is their belief
that the signage as proposed is more appropriate than what staff
is suggesting. Where staff is requesting two monument signs they
are proposing one monument, sign at the corner of Avenue 50 and
Washington Street along with another sign at the entrance on
Washington Street. In regard to wall signage, there is a condition
that restricts them to 50 square feet maximum. This is not what
they believe City Code permits. They have two building sites that
face streets and according to there interpretation they would be
allow them 100 square feet of area and they are proposing 119
square feet. They were led to believe that with a specific plan, as
long as what was designed was of good architectural character
and appropriate in scale, they could in fact have a greater area.
Therefore, they are requesting approval of what is proposed. In
regard to the sidewalk on Washington Street, there is a question
as to whether or not it is to be in City's right of way or CVWD
right of way. If they use the City's right of way it is a straight
sidewalk. If meandering, they need CVWD right of way. In regard
to sight line and whether or not the rooftop units will be seen,
they have designed the building and shown in their sight line study
that the roof mounted mechanical units will not be seen. A
condition has been added requiring them to demonstrate that what
is designed will screen the units. They do not understand why
they are being required to do what they have already shown. One
of the landscaping issues is changing out 50% of the palms on the
west side of the building to canopy trees. The Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) approved understory trees.
He does not understand what the difference is between the two,
but their concern is that big bushy trees will block signs. Lastly,
there is a question as to what happens with Phase II after Phase
I develops in regard to soil stabilization. What they are proposing
is soil cement and staff is recommending wild flowers and they
think this is excessive. In regard to all these issues, they are
requesting additional time to resolve these issues with staff.
8. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to hear staff's response to
some of the applicant's concerns, such as the amount of signage.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that in the Code under
Building Mounted Identification Signs for Individual Commercial or
Office Building it is one square foot per lineal foot of building
G:\WPD'OCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd '7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
frontage along each street up to a maximum of 50 square feet
aggregate. Staff was looking at it being aggregate for all street
frontages or it could be aggregate for multiple signs on one
elevation and those could not exceed 50 square feet and that
would be each street frontage. The Planning Commission can
interpret it either way. With regard to the building height and
Condition //10 of the Specific Plan, staff has made the
interpretation that on any Primary and Secondary Image Corridor
projections are not allowed above the 22 feet. The parapet
elements, in the past, have been interpreted as part of the building
wall and not projections. The tower within the 22 foot height limit
is considered a projection. Commissioner Kirk asked about the
landscaping issues and the CVWD property rights. Staff stated it
was unknown what an understory tree was. In regard to signs
staff was looking at signs being directional and having them at the
entrances for identification. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified
that the strip of land owned by CVWD was acquired by CVWD for
maintaining a flood berm. In order to widen the street they need
to get into that flood berm and set it back an additional 1 2-1 5 feet
on Avenue 50. The City is asking them to acquire the property or
the City could purchase the property through eminent domain.
State Subdivision Map Act allows the City to do this at the
developers expense. The issue of the sidewalk width on
Washington Street is that the City likes to have a meandering, but
as you approach the bridge between the developers property line
and the bridge, there is 60 to 70 feet that belongs to CVWD.
Behind the curb there is a six foot flat spot and then a 2:1 down
slope. Staff is requesting they build the sidewalk on flat spot.
What staff does not know is whether all the land on the flat spot
is in public .right of way. What they are trying to achieve is to
connect the sidewalk to the bridge.
9. Commissioner Butler questioned the use of soil cement as it does
not hold up over time and as they are adjacent to a school which
lends itself to pedestrian traffic and they should have the wild
flowers. In regard to the store hours being 7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m., he would condition the store to stay at those hours. One of
the issues that bothers him is that here is no guarantee that the
office buildings will be built and serve as a buffer between the
residential and Walgreens. Also, the traffic study concerns are not
alleviated. Mr. Albert stated that on the issue of soil cement, he
defers to the landscape architect. They regularly use soil cement
or decomposed granite. Wild flowers become a maintenance and
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
cost issue. In regard to the hours of operation, 10% of their
stores nationwide are open 24-hours. There is no intention to
have this store open 24 hours and they have no objection to a
condition that limits the hours as not earlier than 7:00 a.m. and no
later than 10:00 p.m. In regard to the traffic study, they were
required to produce a study at the worst possible scenario for a
Neighborhood Commercial zone. That generated very high traffic
generation numbers. Those numbers are not real and do not relate
to the development that is planned. They are submitting a letter
from their engineer representing the trip generation figures for their
project.
10. Commissioner Tyler stated that since the traffic information
presented by the applicant and that given by staff are different,
maybe they should continue the project to allow time to work out
the issues.
11. Commissioner Butler stated that in regard to the height of the
building he would support the applicant's request, but if the
consensus of Commissioners was to lower the building, would it
be an issue with them. Mr. Albert stated it is not a realistic option
given the kind of architecture they are proposing.
12. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on
this project and noted a petition that had been received in
objection to the project.
13. Ms. Mary Frances Soltys, 50-400 Spyglass Hill Drive, asked the
height of the sign that would say "Walgreens". Will they have
pickets and what are the hours and dress code and will they have
enough room on the sidewalk. She suggested fines be imposed
for delivery trucks operating outside the approved hours.
14. Mr. John Squier, 78-735 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated his concern
was with sight distance off the entrance off Avenue 50 due to the
grade crest. When the property on the north is built will this cause
a safety concern? How can Walgreens be allowed a left turn
access off Avenue 50 because of this safety issue. A mitigation
measure states the two office buildings will screen Walgreens
from the residential and yet there is no idea when those buildings
will be built; so how can these office buildings mitigate the effects
of Walgreens?
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd ~)
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
15. Mr. Hovak Najarian, 78-395 Palm Garden Place, stated he has
lived in La Quinta for 35 years and he is concerned about La
Quinta's image. He has taught image design at the College of the
Desert for 30 years and has given a lot of thought into how things
should look. In this design he sees an architecture cliche and he
does not understand why there is a need for a tower.
16. Ms. Kay Wolfe, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, stated this is an
inappropriate project for this site. There is a location near by for
commercial called the Village as well as Highway 111. She is not
sure we need another pharmacy, but certainly not at this location.
With the school near by it will become a skate park. It is a
beautiful design, but not in the City's corridor.
17. Ms. Sandra Hawks, 78-775 Spyglass Hill Drive, president of
homeowners' association for the Fairways, stated staff's
recommendation is based on a flawed Environmental Assessment.
It is a piece of fiction. How can you mitigate the visual blight this
project will have by planting trees, parking lots with lights that
glare into the neighboring homes, and noise from delivery trucks.
Additional traffic issues are not mentioned.
18. Mr. Wayne Nystrom, 78-094 Calle Norte, stated he was not for or
against the project, but wonders what will we end up with if this
is not approved. Speaking for Duna Gardens-Duna Fairways and
Villa Vista who are the closest and most impacted by this
development and their only issue is the parking lot lights interfering
with the darkness of their streets. If we don't accept it they could
get something a lot worse.
1 9. Mr. Joseph Bruido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, stated that while he has
been trying to upgrade his home he has seen changes that are to
the detriment of La Quinta. The parking problems at Highway 1'11
and Washington Street are great and now you want to bring
commercial into the residential part of La Quinta with no
commitment from Walgreens to build office buildings.
20. Ms. Carol Adams, 78-740 Spyglass Hill Drive, Vice President of
Fairways HOA, stated so many of the questions raised could have
been answered before this meeting. She agrees that this needs to
be continued. Traffic study questions should have been answered.
G :\WPDOCS\PC3-2 7-01 wpd.wpd ] 0
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Take the buildings down to 22 feet, take the parapet and tower
down and you have a concrete building with a mansard facade.
You are sending artificial positive signs to Devco and putting off
the residents of this City.
21. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there
was any Commission discussion.
22. Commissioner Kirk asked what would happen if they did not
approve this. The 10i000 square foot accessory building is
thought to be a secondary use to a main use. An applicant could
not build the main use without the office buildings being built.
Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated that in the
Commercial/Office designation that was correct. It would have to
be an office/retail use with an accessory use. Commissioner Kirk
stated that if the office came in the accessory use could be a
separate building. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner
Kirk stated he agrees this is the best designed Walgreens. It is
well designed. Mr. Albert made his issues and it is an excellent
specific plan. His thoughts are that the specific plan process is
being underused. He largely agrees with staff's recommendations.
His disagrees with staff regarding the height issue. If they stick
to the 22 feet they are going to have boxes on the Image Corridor.
In terms of the comments made, he agrees with most, but does
not agree that the Environmental Assessment was bad.
Competition should not be a reason for denying a project. He
agrees with public testimony that this is the wrong use in the
wrong place. He is also concerned with continuing this as it might
be sending the applicant the wrong message. If this is not the
right use in the wrong location, they should not send the applicant
away asking him to redesign and spending unnecessary money.
He would suggest they reject the application and make a
recommendation to the City Council for their consideration and
allow the applicant to make any changes they believe appropriate
before going to the City Council.
23. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with Commissioner Kirk.
There has been a tremendous amount of change on Washington
Street and to some, these changes are difficult. The land on
Washington Street is zoned Commercial. The designation of this
site is to serve the surrounding residents. It is a wrong use in the
wrong location.
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd ] ]
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
24. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with the other
Commissioners. There is growth on Washington Street. As to
this site, the applicant has a well designed building. His concern
is that the office buildings will not be built. Walgreens not being
built will not solve any problems because the site is zoned for
Office/Commercial. Traffic is a concern no matter what is built on
this site.
25. Chairman Robbins stated he too agrees with what has been stated
by the other Commissioners. The building, as designed, is
excellent and he agrees with the applicant on the design of the
tower. In regard to the soil cement, it is probably the best answer,
but it needs to be conditioned to keep it up. The issue of whether
or not this is the proper place for this development is one that he
is torn with. This is a far less intense project than what is on the
other side of the bridge. He does believe La Quinta is in a position
where it can be relatively picky as to what type of development
that is allowed in the City. What could we get if this does not go
on this site is unknown and could be more obtrusive.
26. Commissioner Kirk stated he agrees that this project is not far
from intensive commercial development over the bridge. When the
underlying General Plan and zoning says this should be office and
that is the expectation of those surrounding people, the City
should be careful about changing the zoning.
27. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-033 denying Certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental
Assessment 2000-396, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
28. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-034 recommending denial
of General Plan Amendment 2000-067
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd ]2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
29. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-035 recommending denial
of Zone Change 2000-093.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None.
30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 35A, recommending denial of
Specific Plan 2000-045.
ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN' None.
31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-036 recommending denial
of Site Development Permit 2000-677.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT' Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened at 9'16 p.m.
Commissioner Abels rejoined the Commission.
C. Environmental Assessment 2000-405. Specific Plan 2000-049. Parcel
Map 29889. and Site Development Permit 2001-691; a request of Colin
McDermott for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and design guidelines and development standards
for a __+53-500 square foot commercial/office building; subdivision of a
commercial parcel map to subdivide +4.9 acres into 12 parcels;
consideration of development plans for construction of a __+5,000 square
foot permanent bank structure along with a __+1,440 square foot
temporary bank structure to be located at the southeast corner of
Washington Street and Avenue 47.
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and 'asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-O 1 wpd.wpd ]. 3
Planning Commission Minutes -
March 27, 2001
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler clarified that they were approving the two
bank buildings and asked if the color was to be bright yellow as
shown on the elevations. He agrees with staff's recommendations
to the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit. He also agreed
with using the existing curb cuts and again the Commission did
not receive the traffic analysis. Staff stated the Commission was
only approving the permanent and temporary bank buildings as
part of the Site Development Permit. Staff was uncertain as to
the color proposed.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked about the elevator shown on the
elevations as located in the southeast portion of the site plan that
does not appear to be attached to any of the buildings. Staff
stated it was associated with all the buildings. Commissioner Kirk
asked staff to explain the right-in access on Washington Street.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that for the most part if you
have frontage on Washington Street and can comply with the
General Plan you can have access on that frontage. The Planning -
Commission at this time has the right to deny that access or make
them consolidate it with an adjoining property. Commissioner Kirk
asked if this project was conditioned to have access to the project
to the south. Staff gave a history of the accesses on Washington
Street for this site. Commissioner Kirk stated that within the site
plan there is a parking lot at the south border that could have an
access to the development to the south. Staff stated it could be
opened and there is a conditioned to connected to the project to
the south and indicated where on the site plan. Commissioner Kirk
asked if the City normally approves temporary structures before
future permanent building. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio
indicated this was done for the Arts Foundation project.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was an intent to have both an
acceleration' and deceleration lane. Staff explained the turning
plan. Commissioner Tyler asked about combining the access for
both projects at the. property boundary. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer explained the City's did not force the consolidation. They
are a separate project and have their access pattern in place and
the City let them have their access closer to the intersection and
they do comply with the General Plan. The City does try to get
reciprocal access across properties to avoid forcing shoppers to go
onto an Arterial street to go to an adjacent property. The long
term plan for Washington Street is to have extremely heavy traffic
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
in this area with particular congestion between Avenue 47 and
Highway 111. In trying to improve traffic flow and streets, the
first thing staff looks at is side friction and cutting down on the
number of driveways cuts down on the side friction.
5. Commissioner Kirk stated all the exhibits show two driveways
onto Washington Street. Staff stated they have conditioned the
project to only one driveway.
0. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Colin McDermott, the applicant, stated the
temporary building would be in earth tones and there would be
one elevator with walkways combining the two buildings. They do
have an easement and access agreement with the adjoining
property owner to the south. They, however, have not given them
an easement onto their property. Initially they had no interest in
joining them for the access, but the opening will be closer to Caleo
Bay. Their only concern was the spire and turret in their bank
building. They comply with the 22 feet, but the turret goes to 24
feet and the spire goes to 24 feet six inches for a total of 18
inches and 24 inches respectively that would be encroaching.
They believe the architectural elements are important to their
design. With respect to the 28 feet they do not have an issue. It
is the one building and they are 135 feet as opposed to 1 50 feet.
If they have to move the building to comply they wanted to be
sure the additional two feet would be allowed or if a portion of the
building was within the 150 feet setback they could then raise the
building up to hide any mechanical equipment.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked why it would take two years to build the
permanent building. Mr. McDermott stated they are in the process
of developing the permanent structure, but wanted the two years
to allow for any contingencies.
8. COmmissioner Abels commended the applicant on his presentation.
9. Commissioner Butler asked if there would be three rows of ATM
drive throughs. Mr. McDermott stated they have found at their
other banks that this is what is needed.
10. Commissioner Tyler confirmed that there would be no more than
two stories. Mr. McDermott stated only two story buildings.
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd ! 5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
11. Mr. McDermott questioned the height of the spire. Staff stated
Condition #72 would be amended to read with the exception of
the 24-foot turret. Condition #5 would be amended to read
northeast building.
12. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
13. Chairman Robbins stated he liked the architecture of the buildings,
but there is no indication what the signage would be. Mr. Mike
Peroni stated that on Figure 20, Item I of the Specific Plan there
is a notation on the location of the signs.
14. Commissioner Tyler asked where the monument sign would be
located. Mr. Peroni indicated the location on the site plan.
15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-037, recommending Certification of an
Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-405, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-038, recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2000-049, as amended.
a. Condition #5.A.: The northeast corner two story building
shall not exceed 28 feet.
17. Commissioner Kirk asked that a recommendation be forwarded to
the City Council regarding the potential for a joint use for an
access off of Washington Street between the two property
owners.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd ! 6
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-039, recommending
approval of Parcel Map 29889, as amended.
a. Condition #32.A. 1. and #43.A. 1. Fix the inconsistency.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES' None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN' None.
19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-040, recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2001-691, as recommended.
a. Condition #72' The height of the building shall not exceed
22 feet with the exception of the 24 foot high turret.
ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
D. Environmental Assessment 96-333 and Tentative Tract Map 30056; a
request of The Keith Companies for Chapman Golf Development L.L.C.
for certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-333
and the subdivision of 5.39 acres into 13 parcels located at the south
terminus of Washington Street within the Tradition Club taking access
from Del Gato Drive.
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioners discussed with staff the number of units approved
and built.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Kris
Schultz, representing the applicant, stated he was available to
answer any questions.
G :\WPDOCS\PC3-27-O 1 wpd.wpd ] '7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
4. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on
this project. Mr. Randall Jackson, 78-915 Zenith Way, attorney
representing property owners within the Tradition, stated their
concern was that proper notice was not given to the adjoining
property owners and that this is a substantial change to the
character of the community. None of the proposed lots are as
large as those existing. Other aesthetic concerns as well as the
access to these lots need additional time for them to investigate
the impacts.
5. Mr. Tom Lange, Talking Rock Turn, stated his concern that the
City of La Quinta is operating under a false process. By asking a
developer to provide a certified list of homeowners the City is not
receiving accurate information. He has no trouble getting his tax
bill from the County or mailings from the HOA. The City receives
a list certified by a company not even in the City and most of the
lots in this project were still listed as belonging to the developer.
He asked that the property owners have suitable time to respond
to the development theme.
6. Mr. Gary Lohman, 44-836 Deep Canyon Road, Palm Desert,
representing the applicant, stated they followed the procedure as
required by the City for noticing. This project was continued to
this meeting to allow them time to send a letter out to all the
property owners inviting them to a presentation on the project. Of
all those attending, there was a favorable response to the project.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a site plan of the previous
approved tract map showing these lots. He understood that
access to the seven lots was taken on a separate driveway off Del
Gato. Mr. Schultz stated the existing seven lots are approximately
20 feet higher than the street. Each of the seven lots would have
had a driveway approach traversing up the slope to the upper lots.
The current land plan eliminates the seven individual driveways
creating one centralized access point leading into the two cul-de-
sacs with a landscape plan on the west and east side of the
properties.
8. Commission Kirk asked for a copy of the letter that was sent to
the property owners and what addresses were used. Mr. Lohman
stated the addresses were provided by the staff at the Tradition.
Commissioner Kirk asked if anyone else had received this letter.
Mr. Jackson stated none of the property owners he represents
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-O 1 wpd.wpd ] 8
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
received the public hearing notice. In regard to the landscaping
proposed by the applicant that will be on the slope replacing the
driveway, their concerns are that they are going to have a 75-foot
slope to get a 3:1 ratio to achieve the building pads that will be 25
foot high above Del Gato Drive. These are some of the concerns
the property owners are requesting time to consider.
9. Commissioner Abels stated the Commission had a letter from the
developer to the property owners. Mr. Lange stated that of those
he represented, they did not receive any formal notice. The only
information they have received has been by word of mouth.
10. Commissioner Tyler asked what the City was required to do in
regard to the noticing. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez
stated the City's Zoning Code Section 9.200.110 requires the City
notify property owners within 500 feet as reflected in the last
assessment roll. The City has complied with the Zoning Code in
regard to the noticing requirements. In fact the Zoning Code goes
further than what is required by State law which is 300 feet and
the owner went beyond the City's mailing list.
11. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there
was any Commission discussion.
1 2. Commissioner Kirk stated he was concerned about the notification
process, but believe a good faith effort was made and there is
another opportunity for the property owners to present their
objections at the City Council meeting.
1 3. Commissioners Abels and Butler concurred.
14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Butler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-041, recommending certification of an Addendum
to Environmental Assessment 96-333.
ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN' None.
15. It Was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-042, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 30056.
G :\WPDOCS\PC3-27-O 1 wpd.wpd 1. 0
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
E. Environmental Assessment 2001-408, General Plan Amendment 2001-
074 and Zone Change 2001-098; a request of Village at the Palms for
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact,
approval of a pre-annexation General Plan designation from County
designation 2B and Low Density Residential to Golf Course and Low
Density Residential, and approval of a Zone Change from County
designation A-1-20 and R-1-9000 to Golf Course and Low Density
Residential located at the Southwest corner of Airport Boulevard and
Monroe Street.
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked if the remaining 80 acres was owned
by The Palms. Staff stated no, but the property owners concur
with the annexation.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David
Turner, Coachella Valley Engineers, stated he was available to
answer any questions.
4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there
was any Commission discussion.
5. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-043 recommending Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental
Assessment 2000-408, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd,wpd 20
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-044 recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-074, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-045 recommending
approval of Zone Change 2001-098, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2001-699; a request of Patty Bonafede for
Compatibility review of a single family dwelling for the property located
at 43-875 Galaxy Drive within the Starlight Dunes development.
1. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk suggested this type of issue be addressed by
staff or the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
(ALRC) in the future.
3. Commissioner Butler asked staff why the fan window treatment
should be removed and how it was not compatible with the
surrounding residential units. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio
explained the element was not on the surrounding residential
homes.
4. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Keith Miller, 42-503 Rancho Mirage Lane, owner
of the house in question, explained the project.
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
5. Commissioner Butler asked if this had been reviewed by the ALRC.
Staff stated no.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Abels/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2001-006
approving Site Development Permit 2001-699, deleting the
condition requiring removal of the fan light windows. Unanimously
approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2001-700; a request of Hamilton-Gamboa for
compatibility review of a single family dwelling for the property located
at 48-236 Vista De Nopal, within the Laguna de la Paz development.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Skip Lench,
representing the applicant, explained the project.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Abels/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2001-007
approving Site Development Permit 2001-700, as proposed by the
applicant. Unanimously approved.
Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 10:1 9 p.m. and reconveyed at' 1 0.'-23 p.m
C. Site Development Permit 2001-694; a request RJT Homes for review of
landscaping and architectural plans for three prototype units each with
two facades, a guardhouse and common parkway amenities to be located
at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, within the
Palmilla Specific Plan.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked staff to clarify that no grass was
proposed for the front yards. Staff stated that was correct.
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 22
-- Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
3. Commissioner Kirk asked about the roof lines with hip roofs as he
did not see any variation in the roof lines.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Kirk/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2001-O08
approving Site Development Permit 2001-694, as recommended.
Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman reminded the
commission of the joint meeting with the City Council.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
-- Butler/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. on March 27,
2001.
Respectfully submitted,
~---/~~'~/~~~,/Bett~ ~wyer, Exec utiv'~'e Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC3-27-01 wpd.wpd 23